Forum Post: A moral question on outsourcing
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 7, 2011, 11:08 p.m. EST by SGSling
(104)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
If I take a US job and find a foreign worker who provides the same quality of work and has a lower salary, is it wrong?
If I take a US job and find a foreign worker who provides the same quality of work and has a lower salary which is 10% higher than average local pay and provides a liveable middle class wage for them, is it wrong?
Here's how Chileans feel about it. http://www.choike.org/nuevo_eng/informes/2386.html
Interesting read. Thanks!
Glad to be of service.
Don't forget that wages aren't the only factor. If a company can discharge raw sewage and toxic waste, or work with paramilitaries to have union organizers intimidated if not outright killed, that also makes their product cheaper. When a country feels like it can't compete economically unless it adopts the bad practices of its worst neighbor, that is a sort of economic war that may require an economic line of defense.
That might be obsolete with machines.
Nah the skilled jobs will likely never be obsolete. The skills may change over time, but skilled workers will always be around.
For most factory work, I agree fully with you.
A long time does not always mean forever.
Well once machines evolve to the point where they are sentient and able to replace creative skilled human workers, I don't think outsourcing is going to be much of a debate. Humanity will have to deal with its overall obsolescence.
"Humanity will have to deal with its overall obsolescence." So is it a debate or a great battle with machines?
I guess it would depend if the robot race takes after its creators or not.
Lets just hope that there is peace and the machines will develop empathy or something similar and won't develop the ability to be tired.
Consider this: helping an American means you are helping a neighbor but helping a foreigner you are helping someone who won't help you back. Jobs in America provide taxes for USA while giving a job to an Indian, for example, leaves their taxes contributions there.
My view on this topic is that the government should provide incentives and tax exemptions to make labor costs competitive worldwide. Or this could be done by increasing foreign costs. For example, pushing for minimum wages worldwide.
What happens when your neighbours are foreigners and the foreigners are Americans?
Consider this: 1-Gen Legal Immigrant: Works. Sends money to help their family in x country 2-Gen Legal Immigrant: Works Sends money to help their family in x country
Fellow American: 100% goes to American Economy.
No I mean, I am an American. I do my business outside of the US.
Well, that's what happens to manufacturing. It is outsourced to low wages countries. It is a business decision but you could help the American economy much more by bringing jobs home. If you care about your country you can do that but companies only care about how much money they earn and we are normally ok with that. Just consider what would happen if the entire world adopted a standard minimum wage.
My workers actually take home more income than their American workers. Their gross pay is less but their net pay (lower taxes, housing) is around 20% more.
But in the global prospective of OWS, it shouldn't matter who you are helping in that regard because we are all neighbors right?
Personally, I would help my nation first. Anyone else second. Of course, I would help anyone I can but my nation is my top priority.
how do we consider the quality of living as dependent on wages in the light of other problems with quality of living both in the domestic and intercultural sense (power structures, time, etc) that interact with employment?
IMO, it's not morally wrong, but it's stupid in the long term.
can you elaborate why?
It's stupid in the long run for americans, because it results in jobs and money leaving the system. If inputs = outputs you have stability. If inputs are greater than outputs you have growth.
I don't think it's immoral because everyone has a fair chance to compete. However, since we're often competing w/ people who have a much lower standard of living, I'd expect our standards of living to equalize given enough time. In other words, when competing w/ a country who's factory workers earn an average of $80/month, in order to compete our income, quality and manufacturing costs would have to be similar in order to successfully compete.
In the very long term, I think this is inevitable.
Not if we declare global citizenry and end our foreign wars at the same time.
If local businesses pay all of their taxes and the city pension fund manager goes to wall street and invests there, it's possible that the city pension fund money ends up in foreign markets accelerating the growth of competing businesses in other countries with their very own city.
Ironically, this can reduce city tax revenue as businesses begin to struggle. The city then says they have to raise taxes to cover future pension fund costs and because local businesses are making less and less profit!
Is it fair that local businesses actually pay into a taxation system that accelerates their own demise?
One counter to what I have expressed above is that the emergence of foreign market success stories attracts the wealthier people to the U.S. and helps elevate the value of american homes.
But at what price? Housing price jump are an additional deception. Foreign investment in american homes increases their value for several years, property taxes go up, then eventually american homes crash in value once the foreign home bubble buying bursts.
Now we have homes worth less money than before and our businesses are decimated and local city workers go on strike because they fear their pensions won't be paid.
What a horrible cycle.
Yeah I agree there but then I am also curious if the city itself plays a role in the cycle.
Suppose the state does not have "right to work" laws and the city worker's unions have made all places of employment "closed shop" and their pensions/salaries are above what individuals can expect in the private sector? Its completely unfair to anybody outside of the union as there cannot be competition. So the residents of this jurisdiction are paying higher taxes, to fund payrolls, of people they cannot compete with.
If the city rethinks its structure, then the local businesses pay less into the system that kills them.
And on top of that, cities with harbors and piers LOVE the revenue generated by foreign commerce bringing their shipments to their ports.
So suddenly, some cities may be catering more to the importers than than the brick and mortars.
To make it even worse, the brick and mortars are also competing with internet box houses that have less overhead and many times less service. Add in the indignity of a customer who takes up a sales person's time than right from that very store orders the product online.
wow.
Well I won't defend brick and mortar stores. Before I left the US, I was buying nearly everything I needed on Amazon. Why would somebody voluntarily want to pay more at a physical store and pay a premium when you can have the same item new, shipped to your house the next day? Especially when the items are all manufactured at a factory and the brick and mortar is only a middleman?
and yet, people will walk into a brick and mortar store, ask a bunch of questions about a product, even fondle the demo, then buy it online.
If the store tries to avoid these type of leechers, the leecher can dis them online saying the store is snooty and has bad customer service.
There really isn't any way the brick and mortar store can compete without price matching online offers and they cannot price match without losing profit. These stores are holdovers from our step into the internet age..
Not true. Brick and Mortar stores can generate 50 times more revenue than internet only businesses. Brick and Mortar keep the companies honest. Sure, online reviews can help to some degree, but it's also possible to encourage positive reviews in exchange for advertising dollars.
You can pay a premium for items at brick and mortar stores. I'll carry on enjoying my discounts at amazon
Not necessarily true. Brick and mortar stores are constrained because they have to charge sales tax in virtually all of the states.
And, you just dissed every other occupier that works in a brick and mortar store.
No Brick and Mortar store in the US displays the cost including tax. It is not factored into any transaction until the register where it is added above the price they charge. The stores must charge a premium over wholesale price to offset the cost of labor, distribution, rent, etc and a bit to make a profit. Online vendors like Amazon charge less because they only need to ship from warehouses.
As for "keeping companies honest" I am not sure what you mean by this. If you want honesty then enact consumer protection laws like in the EU which dictate warranties and return policies for online sales.
I do think you are out of line wrt technoviking being insulting. Purchasing an item online because it is 10$ less than the local big box shop is in no way insulting to an hourly employee of a retail shop. It is common sense.
You are kind of naive on this issue, sad to say.
Maybe a better standard would be, is it damaging to the US economy, than "is it wrong". Also, if you were to look at the real world effects of the globalist, free market, free trade agenda, you might find out it isn't all that beneficial to those in other countries. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RRwu65uzEI http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5147
No I think "is it wrong" is a fair assessment. We are all citizens of this world so seeing a culture go from subsistence farmers to a middle class standard of living is good for humanity. However is it ok for the developing world to be pulling itself up on the bootstraps of the west?
The video I did not understand though. Why were they upset that an infected herd was culled? That's normal process on any farm.
The issue with the herd is about bringing US "factory farm techniques to Korea. Here is another link that gives you a clue as to how "helpful" the Korean people think the FTA is for them. http://www.2ndrevolt.com/articles/article_view/Mass-Protests-in-South-Korea-against-US-Free-Trade-Agreement
The question I have heard around the financial rags: won't the KORUS FTA actually be a net gain for Korea? If the people are this much against buying American goods, what purpose is there for shopkeepers to stock them? The US will buy up Korean cars, but if the Koreans don't buy American then how does the US benefit?
It may be a net gain for a few wealthy Koreans, but not the average, working Korean. It does not benefit the US. Only a few in the US who import from Korea. It will mean more unemployment in the US.
"Subsistence farmers" is a term used as a propaganda tool. The fact is, many Mexican family farms were self sufficient, sustainable enterprises, that were destroyed by flooding the market with government subsidized US agribiz products The idea that this was "helping" them is a myth. It was helping US ag. corporations. The same tends to be true everywhere "free trade" invades and destabilizes local economies.
No. Subsistence farmers exist. My wife is from Georgia and outside of Tbilisi, most of the country is eeking out a living on their own farmland, with a small amount of income coming from whatever they can sell. They have no running water, no toilets, and sporadic access to electricity. I have spent a lot of time in the developing world and Georgia is not unique.
With regards to the developing world: I don't know how you can destabilize an economy which is already moribund.
I don't currently have a lot of information on the situation in Georgia. You have spurred my curiosity on that subject, and I will look into it. I'm not saying there is no such thing as subsistence farming, but the example of Mexico should be an answer to your question of how free trade can make things worse. Having been married to a Russian, and knowing a number of Russians, my guess as to the poverty in Georgia, may have a lot to do with the attitude, and treatment of Georgia by Russia. Perhaps you can tell me if there's any truth to that.
Its twofold. You had the war back in 08 and the fact Russia is openly destabilizing Georgia by occupying Abkhazia and South Ossetia so foreign investors are a little nervous about putting money into the country.
Then you have the fact nobody except Russians know anything about Georgian culture. During the USSR Tbilisi was a major city, Georgia was a manufacturing hub, and people came from all over the union to tour there. There is actually a lot of neat stuff to see and do there, but it simply draws a blank on most western tourist's faces.
Put those together and its a formula for a mess. Things have been improving since the rose revolution, but almost every georgian family is relying on foreign remittances or subsistence farming to survive.
Yes its wrong.
But go right ahead.
Everyone else is doing it.
RIP USA.
The problem will be solved when all well paid American jobs are replaced with foreign jobs - and all Americans work for a wage such that they cannot buy anything made in America.
Let's start with the ceos. Except Henry Ford -
who paid his factory workers triple the going rate because he insisted they be able to afford to buy a Ford. The wall street journal called him an "economic traitor". Imagine what Newt or Karl or Rick or Michelle would call him.
Yeah but in that case, labor would then be outsourced to the US and the US would eventually rise to a consuming power again.
I look forward to the date.
when is it?
Give me a date when the last well paid job leaves US shores and I will hammer something out.
[Removed]
Yes you are wrong.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Z9WVZddH9w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EewGMBOB4Gg